: a schizophrenic who has a delusion that he owns a car cannot be held responsible for stealing that car because he believes he is right; another schizophrenic with unrelated delusions steals a car and later admits to guilt is held responsible because he was aware of the ‘wrongness’ of his actions)

brings up the idea that insanity must be linked to the act, not just coincidental mental disease

(2) Irresistible Impulse Rule (Parsons, 1887): brought volition into the equation; a person could be aware of nature, quality, and wrongfulness of act and still be unable to refrain from the act due to his mental disease

only used in some states currently

how to measure?: ‘policeman at the elbow’ - if there’s a cop standing there, would he/she still do it?

(3) Durham Case

(1954) (Product rule): a person is not responsible if act was a product of mental disease or defect

very liberal

Þ acquittals went up 14x when it was initiated Þ no longer used

(4) American Law Institute Rule

(Model Penal Code) (1955):

person is not responsible if a mental disease or defect renders him unable to appreciate criminality of the act or conform to the requirements of the law

the terms ‘mental disease or defect’ exclude those that only manifest during criminal act or antisocial behavior